HYDERABAD CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 20-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
MarcA20 
376 
SUPii:EME COURT REPORTS 
[1964) 
HYDERABAD CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL 
WORKS LTD. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA•AYYANGAR AND s. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act No. 16 
of 1955, s. 21-Whether repeals rule 36 frcrmed-under Hyde'rabad 
Abkari Act-If Act No. 16 is a law "otherwise made by Parlia-
ment' within the meaning of Art. 277- Hyderabad Act and Rul.1> 
36 repealed-Constitution of India, Art. 277, Entry 84, List I of 
Vll Schedule-Hyderabad Medical Preparations and Spirituous 
Rules 1345 F, r. 36 .. 
The appellants are manufacturers of medicine in which they 
have to use alcohol. According to r. 36 of the Medical Prepara-
tion and Spirituous Rules, 1345 F framed under the Hyderabad 
Abkari Act, 1316 F the appellant used to pay certain fees to the 
State Government for the supervision of the use of alcohol by 
the appellants. After the coming into force of the Medical and 
Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and the Rules 
framed thereunder the appellants contended that since R. 36 was 
repealed by this Act they had not to pay that fee. On the refusal 
of the State Government to accept their contention the appel-
lants filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the 
power of the Government to levy the fee. But the High Court 
held that R. 36 was not repealed and dismissed the writ petitions. 
Thereupon the appellant filed the present appeals on certificates 
granted by the High Cf>urt. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-
lant that s. 21 of the 1955 Act in terms repealed any correspond-
ing State law and therefore R. 36 stood repealed. The respondent 
contended that the proviso to that section saved all previous 
rules which were not inconsistent with the Act and hence R. 36 
should be deemed to be in force. It was further contended by 
the respondent-State that R. 36 remained in force because it was 
meant to carry out the general purpose of the Hyderabad Abkari 
Act which was a general Act relating to alcohol and intoxicating 
drugs. 
Held: (i) By virtue of Entry 84 List I of the VII Schedule 
to the Constitution no charge could be levied on the manufacture 
of medicinal .preparations except by the Union of India and 
since the 1955 Act is a law made otherwise by Parliament within 
the meaning of Art. 277 the duties and other charges which used 
to be levied by the State in connection with medicinal prepara-
tions could no longer be levied by it. Further the effect of s. 21 
of the Act is that so far as the Hyderabad Act applied to the use 
of alcohol in the manufacture of medicinal and toilet prepara-
tions, the Hyderabad Act must be deemed to have been repealed. 
(ii) By reasons R. 143 of the 1956 Rules r. 36 must be held to 
have been repealed after the coming into force of the 1955 Act 
and the rules framed thereunder. The purpose of R. 36 is clearly 
~overed by the 1955 Ac.t and the rules framed thereunder and 
It cannot survive the said Act and Rules in view of s. 21 of the 
Act and r. 143 and the proviso to s. 21 cannot be availed of by 
the State. 
-
7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
377 
(iii) The field covered by R. 36 is completely covered by the 
1964 
Rules framed under the Act and therefore R. 36 can no longer be Hyderabad Ohemiwl 
justified as good under the general law relating to alcohol and in- and Pharmaceulical 
toxicating drugs as contended by the State. 
Works Ltd. etc. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 399-
403 /1962. Appeal from the judgment and order dated Febru-
ary 17, 1961 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Peti-
tions Nos. 400, 431 to 433 and 495 of 1958. 
K. Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal, for the appellants 
(in all the appeals). 
K. R. Chaudhuri and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respon-
·dents (in all the appeals). 
March 20, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli-
vered by 
v. 
Stat< of Andhra 
Prod"h and Ors. 
WANCHOO, J.-These are five connected appeals on certi-
Wanchoo, J. 
ficates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. They 
involve a common question of law and will be dealt with to-
gether. The brief facts necessary to understand the question 
of Jaw raised in these appeals are these. The appellants manu-
facture medicines in which they have to use alcohol. Before 
Parliament passed the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Ex-
·cise Duties) Act. No. 16 of 1955, (herei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.